Town Of Orange
Planning Board Minutes
9-22-09
Present: Michael Moore, Pat Smith, Jim Basford, Dick Sheridan, Bruce St. John
Absent: Bruce Scherer
Guests: Members of the public
Opened at 7:00 pm
Jim Basford presiding as Acting Chair as Chair is absent.
Minutes: Minutes of 9-8-09 were reviewed.
Dick Sheridan moves to accept the minutes of 9-8-09; Michael Moore 2nd; approved by a vote of
4-0; Bruce St. John abstained.
Review of Mail:
o Letter from FRCOG dated September 10, 2009 re renewed Brownfields program
asking for site recommendations by October 8, 2009
o Copy of Letter to Board of Selectmen from Richard Ballou—regarding the Planning
Board’s approach to Special Permit requests, in particular the gravel permit requested
by the Littlewoods.
o Postcard from ARC Community Services – Electronics Disposal Day—October 10,
2009 in Leominster
o Views from Mount Grace – Fall 2009
o Memo from David Frye – Highway Superintendent—regarding inspection of the
Millers Landing development, dated September 22, 2009. Indicated the roadway has
been paved and bituminous sidewalks installed. Street and stop signs have been
installed. The first modular is in place with lawn growing. General area needs a
good cleaning of trash and litter. Auto repair garage has been razed but needs to be
secured before someone gets injured.
Board Business 1: Discussed the need for the revised copies of the Zoning Bylaws in hard copy.
Pat will follow up again with the Administrative Coordinator. The Acting Chair asked that the
item be added to the agenda for our next meeting.
Special Permit Public Hearing for Curt & Angela Littlewood and Eddyce Sullivan – 16 West
Orange Road:
The Public Hearing continued at 7:20 pm. Acting Chair read the legal posting. Curt & Angela
Littlewood and Ed Berry, Land Surveyor, were present to discuss the presentation. A quorum
was present consisting of the four members of the Board that were present at the first hearing
(Sheridan, Smith, Moore, and Basford), joined by member Bruce St. John. Mr. St. John had
listened to the audiotape of the first session and had signed a Mullin Rule form to that effect to
allow him to participate in the discussion and vote on the Special Permit. The original of the
form was placed in the Town Clerk’s mailbox and a copy placed in the file.
Planning Board Minutes 9-22-09
1
Applicants were now requesting up to 25 truck trips per day removing gravel from the site. A
new comment was received from the Police Chief Brian Spear on the increased request. The
Chief did not see that the increase to this level, or three trucks per hour, would be an issue. It
was mentioned for the record that three members of the Board had made a site visit on August
28th. In addition, the Chair had made a separate site visit earlier in August.
The Acting Chair opened up the floor to comments from the members of the public present. The
following comments were received:
o Paul Larocque, 54 Warwick Road—He was here at the last meeting, nothing personal
against the Littlewoods, no problem with the farming operation, what concerns him is the
gravel operation. Initially, removal without a permit might be ignorance of the law, but
haulers are well aware of the need, or should be. This permit if granted opens the door to
mining in the area in Route 78-Route 2A-Haskins Road area to gravel over time.
Appearance of our area of town will be forever altered and house values would be
significantly diminished, impacting real estate tax revenue to the Town. It is for this
reason zoning bylaws were created to be protective. Also raised the issues of noise,
effects on the aquifer, and truck traffic, especially at 25 trips. Are there any benefits to
the Town of Orange for a gravel operation? Five to 10 years is a long time for the
neighborhood to endure the operation. The permit must cover adequate regular
monitoring with this responsibility assigned to a specifically named Town employee.
Performance bond must be provided regardless of cost (Sec. 4140). Circumstances can
change in a heartbeat. If the farming operation ceases, does the Special Permit cease?
Respectfully inquires of the third applicant—is she present and what is her interest in this
request? Urges the Board to give this application careful consideration. Another issue is
that the 93+ acre property adjacent is for sale and the sale materials indicate “gravel
potential.” Already had two applications for permits in the area, though that might not be
relevant. But wouldn’t granting this facilitate something like on that parcel on 2A or on
Haskins Road?
o Richard Ballou, 81 Warwick Rd.—Recent developments on properties in West Orange
have a value of $1 million +, new housing. These residents are entitled to the security
that the zoning bylaws were put in place to provide. This is the third attempt in recent
times to make inroads and precedent for mining the resource that is the basic substrate of
the entire sector. Residents deserve better protection for their equity. It has been
suggested that the bylaws be changed to reflect no special permits in that zone.
Apologized for earlier comments regarding there being no site inspection, but has Board
studied the likelihood of the unique value of the material being extracted? A quick
search of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) standards on the internet
reveals there is a great variety of aggregate, not all just gravel. Operators may not be
anxious to reveal why there is such interest in mining on this site. Any clear cut and
gouge is a flaw in the contour of the Earth. Artificial restoration is artificial. It would
seem that the applicant should have to proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals in this
matter.
Planning Board Minutes 9-22-09
2
o Robert Andrews, resident—If history teaches us any lesson at all, we have had some of
these projects already, matter of fact some close to his neighborhood that came in with
similar stipulations as to the hours, number of trucks and how they would restore their
property when it was all done. I’m sorry to say the property still looks like a hole with a
lot of bumps in it and has never been properly restored like it should have been. Referred
to Section 4100 regarding Earth Removal that gives the Town assurance of what is going
to happen when it is all done. One of those assurances is restoration: “following removal,
all excavation areas shall be restored by grading to provide for drainage and for slopes
not to exceed one foot vertical to two feet horizontal, and by covering with four inches of
topsoil, and by planting with cover vegetation, which shall have been established prior to
release of the bond.” (Section 4130) Bond not mentioned in the application or waiver
thereof. Read Section 4140 regarding the bond, a schedule of disbursements in stages
upon completion of the work, and use of any unused funds for by the town to complete
the project. Has a very strong feeling about not adhering to what Town Meeting voted in
this bylaw: the restoration and the bond. Hopes that the Board will address both things in
its deliberations on the Special Permit. Would hope this committee would review the
facts and not set a precedent that could open up for a whole lot of people requesting this
type of operation and especially without a bond.
o Marcia Larocque, 54 Warwick Road—Nothing she would like to see more than local
green, sustainable farming. It would be a boon to the area and to the Town and to the
economy, but would like some assurance that it will remain a farm. More frightened of
the can of worms it opens up for the abutting 93 acres. Live in an area that is a tertiary
aquifer that is fed by the gravel in the eskers, and in an area that is targeted for wildlife
corridor preservation. These values are important to a region beyond our own area.
Ed Berry responded that the application does address the restoration, have proposed a softer
slope (3:1), and are redistributing 10-12 inches of topsoil, rather than 4-6. Because they are
trying to establish this a pasture for use in sustainable farming they will be providing at least
three times the depth of the Town’s requirement. Will also maintain a 5 foot groundwater offset.
Each application and each permit stands on its own merit according to Mass. law; cannot assume
that precedents will be set. The Town’s Zoning Bylaws in place allow for such a gravel removal
operation. Town has passed a Right-to-Farm Bylaw and this is a unique situation. This is not a
gravel removal business being conducted by a large company as a mining operation.
o Angela Littlewood, property owner—Eddyce is Curt’s sister and they went to her for
assistance in buying the land and she was kind enough to help them and there is a
notarized letter in the file indicating her approval of the application.
Dick Sheridan moves to close the Public Hearing at 7:40 pm; Bruce St. John 2nd; unanimously
approved.
Dick Sheridan noted that there is a misunderstanding that zoning in general is put into place to
protect property values. Its primary purpose is to create and insure affordable housing, and
protect the value of the town as a whole, not the value of individual homes or sections of town.
Applicant owns a piece of property and it has value if he can do with it what he wants. He made
an application for an allowed use under zoning. Would need very strong opposition to vote
Planning Board Minutes 9-22-09
3
against applicants plans to do what they have a right to do. Mr. Andrews was referring to the
gravel operation on Holtshire Road and that was a commercial operation that has no comparison
to this project at all, its apples and oranges. Spent a lot of time brooding over the development
of zoning over time. Where did the “friendly” in the Friendly Town go? In 1969 people helped
their neighbor. Now there are people that drive around to look for things to complain about.
Believes the applicant is not doing anything that should require a permit to begin with, and is in
favor of granting a permit and under no conditions would he vote in favor of the bond. This is a
small town farmer trying to make a living.
Michael Moore expressed concerns about the inspections. How can that be phrased and written
into the permit. If it is an acre and a half or two acres at a time, that is not a large area to recover.
Draft conditions regarding the inspection schedule were reviewed. Not thrilled about 25 trips per
day.
Paul Larocque asked the Acting Chair if he could ask Mr. Berry a question. After a discussion,
the Acting Chair allowed him to do so. If you are doing 25 loads per day on average, what
would be the time estimate for completion of the project? Used window of 5-10 years because
he is not going to be taking something out every day; but can’t give an exact number of years.
Neighbors would rather it take 5 years, and in order to accomplish this, the more trips per day
would be useful. That flexibility could help expedite it to be completed sooner.
Bruce St. John believes this is a farm project and doesn’t even belong in front of us. If some
unknown contractor comes in from out of town to build a subdivision, we want a money bond,
but this is a local citizen running a farm. As far as the bond goes, it could be a million things, not
just money. In this case it should be no more than his word. In regard to the noise, they were
already hauling gravel out of here and there was no problem. (Others pointed out that there had
been a complaint.) Truck traffic was happening on this road anyway.
Pat Smith agreed that number of trips was a big increase over what we had heard before but Mr.
Larocque’s question raised the issue of whether that buys a shorter time frame for the neighbors
to be inconvenienced. Glad that the Police Chief thinks that it isn’t an issue for general traffic on
the road, but that should be balanced with the neighbor’s concerns. Noise is another question for
the neighborhood, but the applicant has made great efforts to buffer it. Did not hear neighbors
complaining about the noise from the work that has been done. Concerned about the question of
the bond. Generally would tend to be quite strict about that kind of matter, regardless where the
applicant comes from, and would require a bond. If we had a commercial mining operation of
the nature of the one on Holtshire Road, which was the subject of litigation and we were
involved in it along the way too, a performance bond would have been entirely appropriate. In
this case, the only people who are going to notice if it isn’t reclaimed quickly are the applicants
themselves. Doesn’t see that there is any disadvantage to the Town if that isn’t done. Is inclined
to waive a bond in this case because it is not a commercial operation. Doesn’t think that this sets
a precedent for other operations coming in. Recent Special Permits have included a condition
that it applies to this applicant at this location. So, if the Littlewood’s were to sell the property to
someone else, they could not remove gravel without coming back to the Board for another permit
and they would have to explain the purposes of their application, which would be reviewed as an
entirely separate one.
Planning Board Minutes 9-22-09
4
Couple of other things that could be addressed, possiby from the letter from Mr. Ballou that was
read in the Mail section an should be inserted in this file. One suggestion was that there should
be no special permits in the zone, presumably for gravel removal. That would have to be done
through the formal process of amending the Zoning Bylaws including a Public Hearing and
Town Meeting approval and could not be done by this Board. It would also apply to the entire
Zone D (which is the majority of town) , not just to this property or neighborhood,. The question
of reclamation has been addressed. The new detailed plans provided at the last meeting show
areas where the materials for reclamation will be stored and identify volumes that must be
stockpiled. We can address a lot of these questions by careful structuring of these conditions. Is
inclined to give the special permit with those carefully structured conditions.
Bob Andrews was recognized by the Acting Chair and addressed a direct question to Dick
Sheridan, who wears many hats and has responsibilities under those hats. He notes that he is a
member of the Board of Selectmen and should take the Town interests to heart. If we go to
litigation for some reason or other the Town does not have money for legal fees. Dick is on the
Planning Board, is also a contractor, has an automobile business, and is a realtor working at 4
Columns Realty. He wanted to know if they have the property next door for sale. Acting Chair
interrupted and reminded the public that the public meeting was closed and we should now be
focusing on the Special Permit for this applicant.
Jim Basford is concerned about the increase in the number of loads proposed having jumped so
much since our last meeting. Also agrees that monitoring of the clearing of an acre or acres is
critical in the Special Permit drafting. Agrees with Pat on the bond issue on this particular
project.
Dick Sheridan noted that the size of the truck will matter in regard to the number of trips. If we
go down below 20 trips, we may be extending the period during which residents will have to put
up with truck traffic. More expedient for the applicant and easier on the neighbors to get the
operation done in a quicker manner. Can put a restriction on the loads and on the time of the
permit so the applicants can get the gravel out and residents can be assured that the gravel will be
out within a certain period of time.
Ed Berry indicated that the applicants would not be opposed to limiting the time frame (such as
to 5 years) to reach a balance to minimize the disturbance to the neighborhood and to get to
farming sooner.
Board reviewed the draft Special Permit, beginning with the Findings that relate to the six
Special Permit criteria. Clerk clarified with the surveyor that there are two deeds. Acting Chair
read the proposed findings aloud. Discussion then centered on the question of the 25 loads per
day onto a state highway and the finding that the Town has little or no interest that would
warrant the requirement of a performance bond because the operation is to take place at the
applicant’s home and is not a commercial gravel operation. No revisions were suggested to the
draft findings. The Board then reviewed the conditions and agreed to add a 10-year time limit to
the conditions. Hours of operation were amended to end at noon on Saturday. Extraneous
language (“more desirable”) was eliminated in #7 in regard to the slope of 3:1.
Planning Board Minutes 9-22-09
5
Dick Sheridan moves to approve the Littlewood gravel removal Special Permit with findings and
conditions as amended; Bruce St. John 2nd, unanimously approved.
Board Business 2: Dick Sheridan stated that he is submitting a letter of resignation from the
Planning Board to the Board of Selectmen because he does not feel he can participate in good
conscience anymore because there are too many rules and regulations. The Acting Chair
thanked him for the courtesy of the advance notice.
Meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Patricia A. Smith, Planning Board Clerk
Planning Board Minutes 9-22-09
6